COPENHAGEN: Government claims it is a human right to cut (male) babies' genitals

Business Insider
June 16, 2016

Denmark defends circumcision as a human right - even though 75% are against it

by Vilhelm Carlström
Even though a large majority of Danes are against the circumcision of boys, and even though the circumcision of girls is strictly prohibited in Denmark, the government has now officially accepted that it's a human right for parents to circumcise their sons.

The Local reports that a YouGov survey from 2014 showed that 74% of Danes were against the circumcision of boys, while only 10% supported the practise. Despite that, about 1000-2000 boys ar circumcised each year in Denmark, according to the CPH Post.

Since 2014, the matter has been reviewed but without much to show for it.

In 2015, Denmark decided to delete its registry of circumcised individuals, reports the Local. Now, in a report to the United Nations the Danish government officially accepts an Egyptian convention which recognizes circumcision as a human right, writes CPH Post.

The basis is that circumcision of boys is rarely associated with medical complications, when performed under medical supervision [this is equally true of the "circumcision" of girls in Indonesia and Malaysia], and that it's viewed as a religious expression and therefore falls under the freedom of religion right.

Circumcision of boys will therefore remain legal as it complies with Danish law and is carried out by a doctor.

Male circumcision can lead to a more problematic sex life. 
Contrary to claims that circumcision in males is unproblematic, however, a Danish study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 2011 finds that circumcision leads to frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men. The study also finds that women who are the sexual partners of circumcised men also have significantly higher orgasm difficulties, more problems with painful intrcourse (dyspareunia), and more often feel a sense a incomplete fulfillment of sexual needs.

WASHINGTON, DC: Bill protects boy-baby-genital-cutting, ritual slaughter as "religious freedom"

Freedom to cut babies, but not from being cut

The Jerusalem Post
May 19, 2016

House passes bill protecting circumcision, ritual slaughter as religious freedoms

WASHINGTON (JTA) — A bill unanimously approved by the U.S. House of Representatives would extend religious protections to advocates of circumcision and ritual slaughter as well as atheists, addressing what its sponsors describe as an increase in religious persecution in recent years.

The bill, passed Monday, would broaden the definition of “violations of religious freedom” in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to include the persecution of advocates of male circumcision or ritual animal slaughter. [Does that include any opposition to male genital cutting or ritual slaughter?] Atheists would become a new protected class. 

The measure, which moves to the Senate for consideration, was named for retired Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., a longtime champion of human rights who authored the 1998 law.

114th CONGRESS 2D Session H. R. 1150 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES May 17, 2016 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations AN ACT To amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to improve the ability of the United States to advance religious freedom globally through enhanced diplomacy, training, counterterrorism, and foreign assistance efforts, and through stronger and more flexible political responses to religious freedom violations and violent extremism worldwide, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SEC. 102. Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. (a) In general.—Section 102(b)(1) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6412(b)(1)) ["Each Annual Report {of the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom} shall contain the following:"] is amended— (3) in subparagraph (B) ["Violations of Religious Freedom"], in the matter preceding clause (i) ["An asseessment and description of the nature and extent of violations of religious freedom in each foreign country, including persecution of one religious group by another religious group, religious persecution by governmental and non-governmental entitites, persecution targeted at individuals or particular denominations or entire religions..."— (A) by inserting “persecution of lawyers, politicians, or other human rights advocates seeking to defend the rights of members of religious groups or highlight religious freedom violations, prohibitions on ritual animal slaughter or male infant circumcision,” after “entire religions,”...

“The world is experiencing an unprecedented crisis of international religious freedom, a crisis that continues to create millions of victims; a crisis that undermines liberty, prosperity and peace; a crisis that poses a direct challenge to the U.S. interests in the Middle East, Russia, China and sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere,” Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., who authored the bill, said in a statement.

There have been increasing calls in recent years in northern European countries for an end to circumcision and ritual slaughter, spurred in part by anti-Muslim hostility [but mainly by a well-founded concern for human rights], U.S. government and European Jewish officials have said. [And that constitutes "persecution of advocates" how?]
 
The bill’s tier system for how well or poorly countries protect religious freedom would be similar to the one used in the annual State Department report on human trafficking. That report is influential, and countries seeking the good graces of the United States strive to improve their ranking by cracking down on the practice.

Smith is the chairman of the House subcommittee on human rights, and as a co-chairman of the Helsinki Committee, the congressional panel that monitors human rights overseas, has made the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe a focus.

Smith’s office, announcing the passage of the bill, headlined the statement “Combating Persecution of Christians and Anti-Semitism,” although many of its protections would extend in the current climate to moderate Sunni Muslims and non-Sunni Muslim sects in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Myanmar.

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., the bill’s lead Democratic sponsor, said in the same statement that the bill would “better address the religious freedom and violent extremism problems being experienced in the 21st century.”

The bill integrates the 1998 law’s protections into U.S. national security priorities, mandating that the ambassador at large for religious freedom – currently Rabbi David Saperstein, a veteran Reform movement leader — report directly to the secretary of state. It also adds new requirements for presidential reporting to Congress on religious freedom violations and training for diplomats in identifying violations of religious freedoms.

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Mayor De Blasio to move "soon"

Capital New York
January 7, 2015

De Blasio to act ‘soon’ on circumcision ritual

by Dan GoldbergJan The de Blasio administration says action is coming soon on the mayor's long-stalled vow to address the controversial circumcision practice known as metzitzah b'peh, promising a policy that will protect children while respecting religious rights.

The religious ritual as practiced by some Orthodox Jewish sects involves a mohel—a person who performs circumcisions of 8-day-old boys—suctioning blood directly from a wounded penis with his mouth.

Health department officials believe the practice can spread herpes simplex virus-1, which is common in adults but can be especially dangerous for infants. The communities that practice metzitzah b'peh have fiercely resisted city attempts, going back before the de Blasio administration, to regulate it.

The city's health department currently requires parents to sign a consent form acknowledging that the health department recommends against performing the practice, a Bloomberg-era policy that was challenged in court. Attorneys representing the Orthodox sects said the city's health department was overestimating the dangers, and that there is insufficient evidence to prove metzitzah b'peh is dangerous enough to warrant a public health intervention.

Mayor Bill de Blasio promised to revisit the consent-form rule on his first day in office, but has so far not addressed the topic.

 

Mayoral spokeswoman Marti Adams said the administration plans to announce a new policy, but did not detail what that policy would be or exactly when it would be revealed.

"The administration is working to develop a new, more effective policy that protects children and protects religious rights in a way that the community is comfortable with, and accepting of, and will participate in," Adams said. "We expect to announce this new policy soon.”

In 2014, the health department reported four cases of neonatal herpes it believed were linked to the practice.

Earlier story

HOUSTON, TX: Congressman wants to protect circumcision - in Europe!

"Protecting" adults at the expense of children

Your Houston News
May 24, 2014

Stockman seeks to protect religious freedom in the European Union

In response to the growing number of religious freedom assaults in the European Union, Congressman Stockman introduced H.R. 4650, the "European Union Religious Freedom Act." It was referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

This bill seeks to amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to include religious freedom violations relating to homeschooling, Jewish and Islamic meat production, circumcision practices, and religious garb.

"In countries like Bulgaria and Lithuania, parents can't homeschool their children. In Sweden and Denmark, Jews and Muslims can't prepare meat according to their religious beliefs. In Sweden alone, they face legal restrictions on circumcision. In France, citizens cannot wear religious garb in public schools," said Congressman Stockman.

"These laws are unjust towards these Europeans. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 needs to be updated with provisions protecting their freedoms on these religious issues. My bill would do just that," Congressman Stockman added.

If enacted, this legislation would go into effect immediately.

[Breaking news: European Union passes gun-control laws for USA]

UNITED NATIONS: "Circumcision protected by freedom of religion"

Jerusalem Post
March 14, 2014

UN official says circumcision protected by freedom of religion

by Tovah Lazaroff
A United Nations official gave a boost to the battle Jewish organizations are waging to protect the ancient ritual of circumcision, when he told the Human Rights Council it was a right that should be protected.

“Freedom of religion and belief in its application goes far beyond any pre-defined lists of classical religions,” Heiner Bielefeldt said in Geneva on Wednesday. “It protects human beings in their broad variety of convictions, and also conviction-based practices. So issues like male circumcision are part of that.” [And human sacrifice?]

Bielefeldt, who is the UNHRC’s special rapporteur on freedom of religion, made his brief comment on circumcision one day after he delivered a global report to the council on freedom of religion.

The report did not deal with circumcision, but the World Jewish Congress discussed the issue when it addressed the council and Bielefeldt on Wednesday morning, in a statement delivered by Lisa Rahmani.
Rahmani, a member of the WJC’s Jewish Diplomatic Corps program, urged the council to protect Jewish male circumcision and shechita, ritual slaughter of animals. She added that religious Muslims who eat halal meat also needed protection for their ritual slaughter practices.

Shechita and circumcision are cornerstones of Jewish religious practice that date back thousands of years, Rahmani said.

“However, today we are witnessing an increasing number of government actions that seek to condemn and ban these religious practices,” Rahmani said. “We call on the special rapporteur to recognize that these practices are forms of religious expression, to recognize that they are not trumped by other values [... such as the human right to security of the person?], and to ask him to consider limitations on ritual slaughter and circumcision as violations of freedom of religion in his next report to the council.”

...

“In the same way, it is ironic and distressing to observe that circumcision is considered to be a mutilation when performed for religious reason, but is acceptable, and often encouraged, if performed for medical reasons,” Rahmani said.

[Is it "ironic and disressing" that hand amputation is considered to be a mutilation when performed for a religious reason, but acceptable and often encouraged when peformed for medical reasons, such as after serious burn or injury?]

...

EUROPE: Commission President promises no circumcision or slaughter bans

Arutz Sheva 7
Adar 19, 5774 (February 19 , 2014)

European Rabbis: Circumcision, Ritual Slaughter Ban Violates Religious Freedom

In a meeting between the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council of Rabbis, Rabbi Pinhas Goldschmid stated in the strongest terms that the Jewish community will not tolerate a violation to their freedom of religion through the banning of circumcision or ritual slaughter.

"We oppose any violation of freedom of religion in Europe, and I am ready to hold a meeting of European Union member states to discuss the freedom of religion violations of recent years in some of the EU states," commented president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso to Rabbi Goldschmidt in his Brussels office.

[Freedom of religion concerns belief, and practice only up to the point of infringing on the rights of others.]

"The Commission was established in order to guard minority rights on the Continent, and will not tolerate the infringement on religious freedom, such as circumcision and ritual slaughter," Barroso added.

Earlier story

ISRAEL: "Psychological damage" from not being circumcised - rabbi

New levels of sophistry here!

Haaretz
January 9, 2014

Rabbis to court: Uncircumcised boy will suffer 'serious psychological damage'

by Yair Ettinger
The legal adviser to the rabbinical court submitted Thursday its ruling on the appeal by a mother who is opposed to having her son circumcised. “On the altar of the petitioner’s right to freedom of religion, she is suggesting that she will ignore the irreversible psychological damage that is liable to be caused to the child due to his being an exception in the society of the children around him - and that must not be done!” the ruling stated.

The adviser, attorney Rabbi Shimon Yaakobi, is asking the High Court of Justice to reject the petition of the mother - who petitioned the High Court after the rabbinical court ordered her to pay 500 shekels a day ($143) until she agrees to have her son circumcised - and to cancel the interim injunction postponing the implementation of the Supreme Rabbinical Court ruling.

The baby’s parents are in the midst of divorce proceedings, and disagree on performing the circumcision. The rabbinical court accepted the husband’s viewpoint and ruled that the baby must be circumcised by a doctor in a hospital. But three weeks ago the High Court issued an interim injunction postponing implementation of the ruling.

Yaakobi replied to the petition on behalf of the rabbinical courts, and is basing his position on a case from 1998 in which the High Court rejected a petition filed against the health minister by the Ben Shalem association, which lobbies against circumcision. The High Court rejected the petition in a brief ruling, but Yaakobi cites at length from the reply of the state, which says, among other things, that “the point of view is that the welfare of the child requires performing a circumcision, both for religious reasons and due to the social perspective and the social consensus regarding the essence of circumcision.”

Yaakobi also quotes from another High Court decision several years earlier, which addressed whether a Jewish woman who had joined a messianic Christian group could raise her children in that spirit, contrary to the opinion of her husband, from whom she was getting divorced. According to Yaakobi, High Court President Meir Shamgar distinguished between “physical custody,” which would be given to the mother, and “spiritual custody,” which would remain with the Jewish father.

“Differences of opinion between parents on matters of their world view, including their religious world view, do not meant that the dispute is not justiciable, as the petitioner suggests - neither in terms of the welfare of the child nor in terms of the child’s rights,” wrote Yaakobi. “Children have a right not to have their religion changed without their knowledge. Since they are still incapable of forming an opinion, it is the role of the state to protect their right not to have their religion changed, and to protect them from attempts of this kind. This above-mentioned role of the state is reinforced when it comes to a family in crisis, in other words, when the parents are not of the same opinion. In that case, the children were born and brought up as Jews. In their family and their natural environment they are surrounded by Jews. The children did not express any desire to join the mother’s sect.”

So they admit that children have rights. The rabbis seem to think that children are born with religion but no knowledge or opinions. Strange.

Yaakobi also supports his reply with a survey cited on the Ynet website in 2007, according to which 97 percent of Jews in Israel will circumcise their sons. [So this one can be like the 3% who aren't.]
“The minor child who is the object of this affair was born to a normal Jewish-Israeli family,” he wrote. “In their natural surroundings the couple and their children are surrounded by Jews who perform circumcisions on their sons. In a year or two the minor will attend a nursery school where he will be surrounded by children who were circumcised, and it is no secret that toddlers are capable of noticing anything unusual, and enough said.

“The petitioner, who wants her young toddler to experience a feeling of superfluous exceptionalism that is liable to lead to feelings of inferiority and a serious psychological harm, is not doing the right thing. The petitioner does not have the good of the child at heart. The child has a right not to be different from his friends who were circumcised. The good of the child and his right to be circumcised like every Jewish child in Israel cannot be a sacrifice - in contradiction of the wishes of the child’s father - on the altar of the petitioner’s right to freedom from religion.” [No mention of the child's freedom of and from religion.]

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Judge rules parental consent may be required

the New York Times
January 10, 2013

Consent Rule May Proceed for a Circumcision Ritual

by Sharon Otterman

New York City health officials may proceed temporarily with a plan to require parental consent before an infant may undergo a particular Jewish circumcision ritual, a federal judge ruled Thursday.


City officials say 12 cases of herpes simplex virus have likely resulted from the procedure, known as metzitzah b’peh, since 2000, including one Brooklyn case reported this week. Two infants died, and two suffered permanent brain damage. Most Jews no longer practice metzitzah b’peh, in which the circumciser uses his mouth to suck blood from the wound, but it remains common among some ultra-Orthodox communities.

Citing the risk of infection, health officials in September introduced a regulation that would require parents to provide written consent stating that they were aware of the health risks.

But the Central Rabbinical Congress of the United States and Canada, Agudath Israel of America, and the International Bris Association sued in October to stop the rule from taking effect, calling it an infringement of their constitutional rights. They also denied the procedure posed a risk and asked a federal court to put the rule on hold while the litigation proceeded.

In denying the request for a preliminary injunction, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the United States District Court for the Southern District wrote that the risks were clear.

“In light of the quality of the evidence presented in support of the regulation, we conclude that a continued injunction against enforcement of the regulation would not serve the public interest,” she wrote.

City lawyers said they were gratified by the ruling, but Andrew Moesel, a spokesman for the plaintiffs, said the groups would appeal. “We continue to believe that this case is a wrongful and unnecessary intrusion into the rights of freedom of religion and speech,” he said.

Earlier story

OTTAWA: DIY Circumciser loses his appeal

The Calgary Herald
November 16, 2012

Father who circumcised his son on the kitchen floor loses high court appeal

OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada has abruptly dismissed the appeal of a British Columbia man who tried to circumcise his four-year-old son on his kitchen floor with a carpet-cutting blade.

The boy needed corrective surgery to repair the damage from the botched procedure.

In a 7-0 ruling from the bench, the justices left intact a Court of Appeal ruling convicting the man of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

The man, identified only as DJW, was convicted at trial in October 2009 of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and acquitted on the two assault charges.

The appeal court restored convictions on the assault counts and stayed the negligence charge, conditional on the conviction for aggravated assault.

The man's appeal to the Supreme Court sought to have the assault charges thrown out again, but the justices dismissed the case from the bench, saying their reasons would be available in 48 hours.

The original trial was told the man felt his religious beliefs required that his son be circumcised. Doctors advised him to wait until the child was older and stronger before performing the procedure.

In its factum on the case, the Crown dismissed the religious reasoning.

"This is a case about child abuse," the Crown argued. "This is not a case about the applicant's religious freedom or circumcision generally." [But how do the material circumstances of the operation bear on the man's religious freedom or circumcision generally? If he had done it "properly" would it no longer be child abuse? How does this differ except in detail from Dr Andrew Freedman of the AAP Task Force on Circumcision, who circumcised his own son on his parents' kitchen table?]

DJW's lawyer argued that the man took safety precautions, including extensive research on the topic of circumcision.

"The appellant's actions were performed with reasonable cause ... and without intent to assault or in any way harm his son," the factum said.

The trial judge found the kitchen was not a sanitary place for a surgical procedure [Someone should tell Dr Freedman], that the blade used wasn't as sharp as a surgical instrument and it was inappropriate to use a veterinary product to try and staunch the bleeding from the boy's partly severed foreskin.

DJW's religious background was as a Jehovah's Witness, although he was "disfellowshipped" by his family and the church. The Crown said his religious education and associations later led him to believe that male circumcision was a covenant with God.

He attempted to circumcise himself in 2005 and could not stop the bleeding. He had to go to an emergency room where a doctor sutured the wound.

His name is under a publication ban to protect the child's identity.

Earlier story

OTTAWA: DIY Circumciser to be heard by top court

Canada.com
November 15, 2012

Top court hears botched home circumcision case Friday

By Natalie Stechyson
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada will hear on Friday the dramatic case of a B.C. father who, for religious reasons, tried to circumcise his four-year-old son on his kitchen floor with a carpet blade and a blood coagulant meant for horses.

Among the many issues the court will have to consider is the meaning of criminal negligence, and whether religious beliefs can go into the determination of what is reasonable behaviour, said Carissima Mathen, a law professor at the University of Ottawa.

“When you have something like this where, on an objective basis, the benefits of this procedure are mixed, and it seems like the primary motivation for circumcising your son is cultural or religious, are those beliefs something that we should factor into whether this a reasonable thing for someone to have done?” Mathen said.

“It raises questions such as why is it, in fact, that we permit infant circumcision?”

A trial judge found that over the years after his son’s birth, the father known only as D.J.W. decided to “make things right with God” by following the laws of Moses, according to court documents. This included circumcision.

The trial judge found that D.J.W. had consulted with two rabbis and four physicians, and had asked several doctors to perform his son’s circumcision. None would do it because the boy would have required a general anesthetic, which could not be justified for a child so young.

In 2007, after giving his son some homemade honey wine, D.J.W. attempted to circumcise the boy on the kitchen floor, according to court documents, wounding him in the process.

The boy later had to have corrective surgery.

D.J.W. was found guilty in 2009 of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, but was acquitted of two other charges. The B.C. Court of Appeal stayed the conviction and upped the charge to aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

In delving into the case, the top court will also look at whether the injury D.J.W. inflicted was a “wound” and if the blade he used on his son, known only as D.J., can be considered a “weapon,” said Marie-France Major, a partner at Ottawa’s Supreme Advocacy LLP.

D.J.W. is seeking an acquittal, maintaining that the trial judge was wrong to convict him of criminal negligence, but right to acquit him of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, according to court documents.

Counsel for D.J.W. will argue that the man’s actions were performed with “reasonable care” and without intent to harm his son.

The Crown will argue that this is a case about child abuse, not D.J.W.’s freedom of religion or even about circumcision.

[“The result,” according to court documents submitted by the Crown, was “the foreskin on D.J.’s penis stuck out like two arms.] “D.J. was not circumcised. He was disfigured,” the Crown’s factum reads.

A decision from Friday’s case is not expected for some time.

Earlier story